Friday, October 10, 2008

CRANFORD - Nearly a year after the application began, the controversial effort to build a cellular tower at the Cranford Swimming Club (CSC) continued this week.

The Oct. 6 meeting marked the eighth time the application, by a cooperative of cellular providers, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Omnipoint, a branch of T-Mobile, has been heard by the Board of Adjustment. It calls for a 120-foot monopole tower on the rear of the swim club property at the border of Cranford and Westfield.

Representing the applicant, attorney Greg Meese and other experts have maintained the carriers have a gap in coverage and need the tower to meet service demands.

Residents in both Cranford and Westfield have objected, saying the tower will negatively impact their property values and could be a health risk. A group of the objectors have hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper to represent their concerns.

The application has also drawn objections from Union County and the state, with county attorney Norman Albert saying the tower would negatively impact the neighboring Lenape Park and the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office asserting, in a letter that the Rahway River Parkway Historic District, which was identified by the National Register of Historic Places in Sept. 2002, would be damaged if the tower was erected.

During the meeting Monday, Meese cross-examined radio frequency engineer Ronald Graiff who testified in August that an overlap in cell tower locations was a bad practice.

This week, real estate appraiser Thomas Kacheiriess testified that witness John Gillooly drew an improper parallel between the County Park Drive location and a cell tower on Brown Avenue in Springfield last June.

Kacheiriess said that Gillooly's testimony "didn't show the difference in the locations" citing that in addition to having a cell tower the Brown Avenue site was also near a commercial office park, a marked difference from the Cranford site.

"The location they found in Springfield was already impaired by an industrial area that was there long before there was a tower," Kacheiriess testified.

When he was cross examined by Meese, Kacheiriess affirmed his comments that he could not find a precise match to the Cranford location, including the cases that Meese sited in Upper Saddle River and Ramapo.

Some of the strongest objections of the evening came when Schmidt introduced Michael Shuvart as a lay witness. Board attorney David Weeks said that because Shuvart testified only to photos that were taken in his presence and zoning maps that he requested, it was admissible.

Saying that Shuvart was not an engineer and could not guarantee that items were to scale, Meese questioned him as a witness in general.

Schmidt said he would have a few more lay witnesses when the application is continued to November 24, 2008.

The application, slated to continue in November, could extended into 2009 with several witness still left to testify on behalf of the objecting residents.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Hearings for Cell Tower Near To an End in CranfordBy CHRISTINA M. HINKE

CRANFORD — The 120-foot cell tower application drawing strong opposition from Westfield and Cranford residents is nearing its end. Attorney John Schmidt, representing the Westfield and Cranford residents opposed to the cell tower, questioned his last witness at Monday night’s Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing for the application of SMSA Limited Partnership, composed of Verizon, AT&T and TMobile, for a cell phone monopole and equipment shelter at the location of the Cranford Swim Club on County Park Drive.

Mr. Schmidt’s radio frequency engineer expert Ronald Graiff was recalled to the stand for Gregory Meese, the applicant’s attorney, to cross-examine Mr. Graiff. Mr. Meese asked questions about Mr. Graiff’s familiarity with the testimony given by Mr. Meese’s radio frequency expert, Glenn Pierson. Mr. Meese questioned him about the drive test data, which measures wireless signal performance that Mr. Pierson supplied to Mr. Schmidt at an earlier meeting. “I have seen no drive tests in testimony,” Mr. Graiff responded. “I saw calculated coverage.”

Mr. Graiff said that “the stack of paper” given in response to Mr. Schmidt’s request for the data had no meaning because “the algorithm used to analyze was not presented.” “Mr. Pierson danced around at how they were done,” he said. Mr. Meese responded saying, “You made no effort to make a request of this data in another form?” “When someone asks for drive test data it is provided in a map with overlays,” Mr. Graiff said, noting in his experience in cell phone tower cases this form of the information is provided.

“I thought, quite frankly, it was a smart expletive way to get Mr. Schmidt the data,” he said. Then Mr. Meese and Mr. Graiff got into a word definition argument as Mr. Meese questioned what Mr. Graiff thought the definitions were for seamless, “without seams,” he replied; ubiquitous,” the same, he replied; “reliable,” “there is no hard measure of reliability,” he responded. Mr. Meese presented new data to the board that showed the capacity of calls made during legal holidays. “He doesn’t list the holidays he (Mr. Graiff) testified to [at the last meeting],” objected Mr. Schmidt, noting Mother’s Day as an example.

Then Mr. Meese brought up the topic of cell site placement. Mr. Graiff said cell carriers “typically place it (the tower) in the search ring.” “It is not in the search ring,” he said regarding the proposed site placement of the monopole.

A search ring is a hole identified through analysis of drive test data that shows the area to place the tower to achieve the service results desired. Mr. Graiff also said a carrier could place antennae on two 50- or 60-foot buildings to “get the coverage they needed.” Though he said it is not ideal. He said there were building sites to the south and the east that were suitable, but could not recall the exact locations.

Mr. Meese said Mr. Pierson testified to the need to go further north to achieve the desired coverage. Mr. Graiff also said, “There is no fact that states the antennae has to be above the tree line to propagate.” At the last meeting Mr. Graiff testified that there is no evidence stating “that calls will fail when you get outside of that sea of green,” referring to the area that has cell phone coverage. He also said that because of “confusing testimony” that he could not say there was a gap in coverage.

After Mr. Meese’s hour-and-15-minute cross examination, board member alternate Ronald Marotta said to Mr. Meese about not receiving a test data map, “This has been going on a long time. Something like that (drive test map) would have helped move this forward.”

Cranford resident Leonard Waldman informed Mr. Graiff that the test drive data received is not the original data because in an earlier meeting Mr. Pierson said the data was purged from the system due to space issues on the hard drive, and so he used data available at the time of the request.

Mr. Schmidt also called Thomas Kachelreiss, his real estate appraiser expert to the stand. He said he reviewed the Springfield site referred to by the applicants’ appraiser. He called the area the cell tower is located in an “industrial park.” He said since this area has had industrial use for some time that the home values there are already diminished due to that zone and so an appraiser cannot use it in a paired sales analysis.

Mr. Meese’s real estate appraiser used this analysis for testimony. He also said he could not find a cell tower “solely in a residential area.” He said the applicant only mentioned areas that are school zones. Mr. Meese then said that some of these school locations surround residential areas.

Mr. Meese asked about the tower in Mendham, which he said “is a three acre residential zone in a residential property.” “There haven’t been any sales in 2,000 feet of that property,” Mr. Kachelreiss responded as to why he did not do an analysis there.

Board member Christopher Drew told the appraiser that Union County College’s public safety director sent a letter to the board stating its reasons for not wanting a tower on its grounds. The college was approached by the applicant before the swim club. Mr. Drew asked the appraiser why he thinks the college would not want it on its property.

“I would think they would be opposed because of their Astronomy department,” he answered, saying the tower would cause interference. Then board chairman Robert Hellenbrecht asked Mr. Kachelreiss to give the board “something with more meat” and not opinion.

Mr. Kachelreiss said the homes in Springfield in the area of the tower are larger in size than those in the Westfield/ Cranford area in question, but the values of the homes in Westfield and Cranford are higher. He also said the quality and maintenance were not equal, inferring that Westfield and Cranford were of higher caliber.

Cranford resident Marjorie Meise asked Mr. Kachelreiss if he thought the homes in Westfield and Cranford, in the vicinity of the tower, would decrease in value and he said “yes.” She also said the homes in question do not have acres of land like the area in Mendham.

Then Mr. Schmidt called his final witness, Michael Shuvart, a resident of Manatoa Circle in Westfield. He showed the board pictures and a map of the area where the tower would be placed and of the area in Springfield. It showed a line from the tower to where the setback from property should be at 360 feet. The proposed setback of the tower is 14 feet.

The next meeting is set for Monday, November 24, when Mr. Meese will cross examine Mr. Shuvart, and if time allows residents can come before the board with comments.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

CRANFORD, NJ - The end is nowhere in sight for the controversial Zoning Board hearings on a proposal to erect a 120-foot tall cell tower on the Cranford Swim Club grounds, an application reaching the one year anniversary of its introduction this month.

The applicant, Verizon, is seeking height and setback variances needed to erect the pole in a residential area, near the county-owned Lenape Park and the Rahway River Park historic district.

Zoning Board Chair Robert Hellenbrect said he expects more hearings on the project, anticipated to extend well into 2009. He said he never expected the application process to last so long, but he is not surprised.

“After the first meeting, when so many people turned out, I knew it was going to be a long one,” Hellenbrect said.

The first hearing on the application was Oct. 15, 2007. Area residents’ concerns focused on aesthetics, the location of the pole in relation to their property lines and the adjoining park, and the health hazards associated with living near the tower, a factor that remains a topic of concern despite not yet having been scientifically substantiated.

The residents hired attorney John Schmidt of Lindabury, McCormick & Estabrook in Westfield to represent them in the matter.

Hellenbrect pointed out the application involves a lot of technical details, which have generated a lot of questions.

"The applicant has finished his portion of testimony. Presently the lawyer, who represents a good number of people, is presenting his witnesses," Hellenbrect said.

County officials are expected to take a turn, offering their view of the proposed tower on Oct. 6, depending on scheduling.

County Counsel and Cranford Democratic Chair Norman Albert, will represent Union County's view on the issue.

“I’m disappointed its gone on this long, but I’m not surprised,” Albert said. “I think the appropriate thing to do would be to withdraw this application as inappropriate for the neighborhood and for Cranford and the county.”

"The county attorney will present a witness and that may well wrap up the portion of the hearings associated with testimony," Hellenbrect said. "And we will then open it up to public comments."

Among the most vocal opponents of the cell tower proposal have been some members of The Shuvart Family, who live near the site, on Manitou Circle.

Michael Shuvart acknowledged the lengthy nature of the application, but said he felt a lot of progress had been made in recent meetings toward bringing out what he described as "discrepancies" in the application.

"It's time for us to provide our witnesses," said Shuvart, who noted the residents onsulted with a radio frequency engineer and a real estate appraiser.

Hellenbrect said that while meeting attendance has fallen off somewhat since the hearings became televised in April, residents have continued to follow the process.

"There has been a considerable amount of interest through the entire hearing," he said.

Hellenbrect disagreed with statements made suggesting the cell tower has become the longest-running application to come before the Zoning Board.

This distinction, he maintains, is held by a four-year-old application for a gas station at the end of Orchard Street.

Schmidt, Verizon attorney Gregory Meese and representatives from the Cranford Swim Club did not return calls for comment.

The next hearing on the application will be held at 7:30 p.m. on Monday at the Municipal Building, 8 Springfield Ave.

Welcome to Residents A.C.T.

Welcome!

Thank you so very much for taking the time to visit this site. Residents A.C.T. was started in order to express opposition to the proposal of a 130' cell tower & adjoining equipment facility to be located on the property of the Cranford Swim Club. The Cranford Swim Club is located at 201 County Park Drive, Cranford NJ 07016. It is directly adjacent to Lenape Park and is located across the street from Nomahegan Park.